2 The first major public division of labor. The first and second public division of labor: causes, essence and consequences. What happens in the case of non-equilibrium in terms of orthodox theory

To begin with, we need to describe how I understand the production process. I understand it differently than it is understood now, and as people having economic Educationso it and not having, but colliding with economic issues in their activities. My understanding is not at all original - this is exactly the way the production process (the labor process, production process) representatives of classical political economy were represented. Just today, few people remember this.

At the beginning of the production process there is some object (the set of objects) to be transformed into the final product. This object may be some material that is in its natural state or subjected to pre-processing. In any case, for a certain production process, this object is raw material.

Further. This raw material must be transformed into something else as a result of the labor process. However, it should be understood as the following. According to j.st. Mill, a man with his actions, with the help of his bodily strength (with the exception of rare exotic cases) cannot transform the source material into something else. It can only move the raw material and intermediate products to where they act on them for the forces of nature, which also carry out such a transformation.

It should be expanded by this understanding, firstly, explaining that the forces of nature can be both natural (both in the production of wine or other fermentation products) and pre-organized (the machine, and indeed any tool is organized by the forces of nature), and in -The believe that a person can move not only raw materials, but also organized forces of nature.

So, the production process is some sequence of the employee of the movements of the raw materials (intermediate products) and / or organized forces of nature and is completed by receiving a finished product.

This process takes real time. Let's depict it in the picture, from which we will then work (Fig. 32). I have already drawn similar drawings in the first lecture, only then the production process has already been divided into operations, and now we still have to understand how this happens.

I understand that this is a fairly primitive presentation of the production process, it would be necessary to consider much here, but unnecessary details will not change further conclusions, but only complicate the presentation.

Maybe external factors will tell us how to do it? But if there is an equilibrium on the market, then we will not get any signals from the external environment. Prices look fair and provide each employee income that takes into account its costs associated with the training of the appropriate profession.

We, of course, can formally cut the time during which the production process is carried out, at some equal intervals. Yes, but how much and how long? What is this due? Why the process of production of the pin should be divided into 18 operations, as this is described by A. Smith? Why not on 3? Or not 100?

Of course, each of the artisans, probably divides the time of their work on some semantic segments. In this period, I do one, in the next - another. At the same time, different artisans can share the production process completely differently, in accordance with their subjective preferences. If, of course, they did not study professions somewhere in one place: in fact, the crushing on such semantic segments is usually occurring during the training and thus facilitated the learning of knowledge. Although then each employee can enter and something in accordance with his personal experience.

Here, again, it can be much and useful to strive for many things, but I will not do this. Something we will discuss later when our picture becomes clearer.

So far we will only formulate the following.

When there is an equilibrium on the market, and the production process in a broad sense is carried out as a daily routine: Preparing (bought) raw materials, recycled, sold the finished product, - the manufacturer does not exist any objective grounds for allocating individual operations and give it some particular importance.

What happens in the case of non-equilibrium in terms of orthodox theory

So we must assume the presence of non-equilibrium.

Suppose the situation of non-equilibrium has developed on the market: the demand for a certain product is steadily higher than the offer. What happens in this case? Economics textbooks tell us the following.

First, prices for this product will increase, and the balance of demand and supply will be quickly restored. But will the equilibrium restore? No, because in this case, employees of the appropriate profession begin to receive "excessive" income compared to employees of other professions. That is, such an income that is not caused by the costs of obtaining the necessary skills.

Then at the next stage, some of those employed in other professions will begin to retrain. Young people who have not yet have a profession will try to acquire this particular profession. As a result, the number of people working in the relevant industry will grow, the production increase will increase, prices will begin to decline, the exhaust is gradually reduced to zero, and a new equilibrium will be established.

This reasoning has its weaknesses. They have long been well known and are often used to criticize the traditional theory. And what if everyone wants to retrain the manufacturers, say, toothbrushes? Then at some point the production of brushes will grow multiple times. Prices will not just decrease, but collapse. At the same time, the prices of all other goods cheerfully take off, the crowds of artisans will again rush to retrain with the same consequences. And the market, instead of come to a new state of equilibrium, will go into the state of chaos.

In mathematical models, where they operate with abstract "infinitely small" deviations, maybe everything looks smooth77. But when you begin to describe processes in terms of economic reality, and even taking into account temporary lags, then everything looks somewhat different. Those considerations that I led underlie the majority of existing verbal theories economic cycle and crises. They differ only by the character of the "shocks" and the mechanisms of "delay" of the reaction.

But my task is now in another. I have to show how violation of market equilibrium leads to the emergence of firms.

Consider a fairly simple and visual example. Suppose that the craftsman during the production process uses some expensive equipment, such as the machine. Suppose also that the level of labor separation in the system is such that the production of machine tools is a separate profession. That is, the machine is a commodity and purchased on the market.

Let's sing out in our manufacturing process that period of time when the machine is used (Fig. 33).

The sequence of worker's movements associated with the use of the machine will highlight into a separate operation. We obtain that this operation takes 1/8 of the total working time.

Under an equilibrium, the allocation of this operation has no particular sense. Why does she gain a special meaning in non-equilibrium conditions?

What prevents artisans from other industries to quickly switch to the production of notorious toothbrushes? We have already spoken - the lack of knowledge and the need to spend time on their receipt. Okay! Suppose that this factor does not play a significant role. The correct sequence of actions is so simple that anyone can master it in a few days.

But then people will stop the absence of necessary equipment, machines. After all, the machine production was originally also in equilibrium: the machines were produced as much as it was necessary to compensate for the departure and improving a small increase due to the growth of the population. And then suddenly everyone needed machines.

The prices for them, of themselves, will grow, but quickly increase their production is unlikely to succeed. Machines are a bottleneck that does not allow the industry to quickly react to the growth of demand.

The acting artisan, who has the machine already exists, if he understands what has a key resource key for its industry, it gets the opportunity to use this circumstance to its benefit.

What is needed for that? Make so that the machine worked not 1/8 part of working time, but throughout the work time. That is, increase the scale of production 8 times. But this can be done only if the number of employees increases 8 times. Someone must do the remaining necessary operations.

Of course, it is possible to organize 8 people differently. For example, so that each of them carry out the full production process, but only with such a shift in time so that, as soon as the machine is required, the previous employee would finish them to use it, etc. (Fig. 34).

But, as it is not difficult to understand, it is extremely difficult to manage the organized process. It will always be happening, something is idle, because someone did not have time for something (and how to trace for him throughout the production process?), Or several workers are waiting in the queue until the machine is released.

It is much easier to do differently. To split all the working time on the segments of equal length in the 1/8 production process, grouped the movement done during these segments to the operation and entrust perform each individual employee (Fig. 35).

Here, of course, there are problems. Operations formally selected in time cannot have a logical beginning or logical completion. It may be necessary to block the entire production process. But from the point of view of organizing the current management, this approach is more appropriate. It is always known who do what it does, and if a failure occurs, it is easy to determine and punish the guilty (remember our reasoning about the breeding leader).

The question arises - where will the workers get from and how much do they need to pay? As for workers, we have suggested that we have a large number of people willing to work in this industry - because it brings extensions. The only thing that prevents these people to fulfill their desire is the lack of on the market of machines and / or the high price for them.

See: His, let's say, a monthly extensibility as a result of the creation of the company grows 8 times. I do not know half or a quarter of this increase, but something he may well distribute among its employees, and still remains in a gigantic plus.

In this case, I assume the most softer conditions for workers. Below we will see that even if at first for hired workers, the situation looks quite comfortable, then, as the condition of hiring both within the industry, and in the economy as a whole will deteriorate.

The creation of the company is a truly revolutionary act that changes the entire structure of the economy. Not immediately, but very fast. Little pebbles cause a gathering avalanche, her scale and energy are constantly growing. And only recently, on historical standards, this process began to exit, and today almost stopped.

It would seem, nothing special happened. Nothing changed in the production technology. Nothing such that we are accustomed to referring to scientific and technical progress is not in mom. The costs of production were not declined, and with the assumptions made by me, the wages of employees are established, they even grieved slightly. But at the same time, at some one point of the economic space, production has grown 8 times. Several craftsmen rose several times, which was now the entrepreneur now.

But this is just the beginning. Can these income be enlarged? Yes, only for this you need to hire another 8 workers and buy another machine. With the first special problems will not be, but we suggested that the Machines in the market the deficit and the price of them are high. But our entrepreneur is unlikely to stop this circumstance.

First, no matter how much the machine cost, the entrepreneur can easily accumulate the necessary amount. Much faster than someone else can do it. Secondly, in fact, the prices of the machines are not at all beyond, at least from the point of view of our entrepreneur. The restriction for the increase in the price of the machine is the magnitude of the super low, which can obtain an individual artisan at the current conjuncture. If the increase in prices for machines "East" is the entire extensibility, then the demand for them will return to a normal level, there will be no imbalance on the market, and there will be no reason to raise the price.

But for our entrepreneur, even this "impossible" from the point of view of the market situation, the price of machines will not be an obstacle to its acquisition. His extensibility is significantly higher. The machine in his hands is 8 times more intense than anyone else. He can buy machines more expensive than anyone else. Starting from some moment he will buy all the machines. If, of course, others do not guess to do the same as he.

Of course, the creation of a company is not such a simple act as I just described. At least from the point of view of expenses. The initial eight of workers together with the machine must be accommodated somewhere, that is, to build or hire a suitable room. It is necessary to sharply, increase the purchase of raw materials and other materials 8 times. It is necessary to pay an advance to employees to pay their work before the first product produced by them will be implemented. And at the same time, it is confident that there are channels for which products will be saved.

All this must be found money. Something perhaps is the owner itself. Something he can get on credit on the security of the machine, the benefit of the machine tools on the market is becoming more expensive. It is clear that the first entrepreneur will sooner count on its own resources. His followers can already count on a more favorable attitude of the financial sector: they can indicate already working firms and with numbers in the hands of confirming the business plans developed by them. While the wave of demand is maintained and the potential yield is great, among lenders and investors it may even have something like an excitement. At the same time, most likely, newly created firms will immediately become more and more larger.

It is clear that sooner or later a wave of demand, pushing our entrepreneur and his followers to create firms, will go down, and their ability is quickly, many times to increase production, it will be very promoted. Demand and proposal will begin to align, extension, the presence of which and provoked changes will be reduced. In the end, the price for a period of time will fall below the equilibrium level.

The last of those who decided to create a firm (or increase its size by attracting loans) are likely to be crash, since recent loans will be served in the conditions of declining extensions. Together with them they will suffer their losses to their investors and lenders.

When prices decrease below the equilibrium level, and if such a decrease is long, and it is likely to be such, individual artisans will be supplanted from the market. Survive firms that have low debts at the time of fracture and have managed to accumulate sufficient money supply, which will allow them to withstand the price reduction period. In addition, with the deterioration of the company's conjuncture, it will begin to reduce the dumping employees, which, as I assumed, they were willing to pay in boom.

Suppose, as we say, this traditional economic theory says that equilibrium will be restored. But this new equilibrium will be qualitatively different from that equilibrium that existed before the appearance of the wave of demand. At least in one of the industries, individual manufacturers79 will be replaced by firms - structures with internal division of labor.

So, we considered an example, in what situation and how, without resorting to exotic assumptions, we can explain the emergence of the company. An example with the machine I chose exclusively for reasons of visibility and simplicity of presentation. Let's try to summarize.

Let's see once again on our drawing on which we depicted the production process. I said that the artisan has no reason to allocate any operations as special.

But the external observer may well do it. We can notice that for some operations it is required that the artisan has a physical force or some other natural, natural qualities: ingravation, speed of reaction, etc.

We, especially if we know how other production processes are arranged, we can allocate operations inherent in this process only. We can classify all operations. There are simple operations, such that any person can perform, it is worth saying he once to do. Something like feed-receiving-reception, etc. And complex, which can only be fulfilled by a person who has spent the time to train them correctly. We are talking about such operations in which you need to constantly monitor your movements, correlating them with the position and state of the source material, tools, etc. The person from the street to fulfill these operations cannot, anything will definitely break or do it. The ability to perform such operations is the essence of the artisan profession. In other words, here we are dealing with the acquired differences.

I repeat once again, for the very artisan, all operations are equally important. If he does not put the raw material in the right place, let it be an elementary action, then all his ability to perform complex operations with this raw material will not help to produce a finished product.

And in the case of natural, and in the case of the acquired qualities, we are talking about rare qualities, or, if you want, about rare resources. In the detailed example of the creation of a company, the machine is a rare resource.

By analogy with the above example, we can now say that the firm is created as a result of an act of technological division of labor in order to intensify the use of rare resources. If we determine the possession of physical strength as a rare resource, then the division of labor is built around the "silver". In the center of the division of labor, an operation is provided, requiring physical force for its fulfillment.

If we determine the possession of certain acquisitions as a rare resource, the division of labor will be built around the operation, which requires these qualities around the "master". I already told about the machine in detail. And what will tell us, what resource is really rare? Market prices. Those resources that are becoming more expensive in the conditions of the wave of demand, those are the most rare. Machine tools are expensive - it means machines. There was a demand for hydraulic, they have increased wages - it means that a natural natural advantage is rare. The fee for the training of any specialty is growing - it means that this acquisition of a natural advantage limits the possibility of expanding production due to wave demand.

Let's focus on rarity more. Rough resources - source neoclassic background. But if I have a rater resource with an increase in demand, the company turns out, then in Neoclassic, nothing but rising prices does not enter. What is the difference?

Neoclassicov, the concept of rarity refers directly to the unit of existing division of labor. They believe that if a rare resource is required during the manufacturing process, this requirement applies to the whole process. Because they have no production process as such. He will roll at one point - I always emphasized the static of the models that the orthodox economy enjoys.

Here is one of the most significant separation features between neon-symotions and traditional economic theory. I consider the production process precisely as a process and assume that the concept of rarity can only relate to separate fragments of this process. And then we have the opportunity to divide the labor "inside" the production process.

And to what limit can work? I, Following J. Art. Millem describing the production process as a sequence of movements, something moving. Remember, in the first lecture, I said that the technological separation of labor has its limit tracking the indicators and pressing the button at the right moment. That is, the protest movement that can only come up with.

Neoclassic to describe production (not process) uses such a representation as a production function.

There are factors of production: raw materials, capital (machines and equipment), work. It is necessary to take all this in certain proportions, mix - and the result is some final product. The amount of this product depends on what quantity and in what proportions we will take the original ingredients.

This presentation seems very clear and simple. As long as we do not think about a little.

With the raw material everything is clear. You can quite imagine a warehouse on which bags with the necessary substances or items are stored.

But how to imagine work in this model (we will not talk about capital)? Raw materials are part of final product (Except, perhaps, waste). And what is part of the final product from the work factor? People in their natural form? Again, with the exception of waste. Generally speaking, the form of the production function does not exclude such an interpretation.

Let's not so bloodthirsty. Suppose we are talking about working time. Then in stock we must also store the bag filled with days, minutes and seconds of the "working" time.

Well, how else to imagine the reality seemed to us by the production function?

Someone (owner of the company) takes several concepts of contents from a bag with raw materials, adds a handful of a bag with working time, mixes and gets the final product.

It is not difficult to understand where this image is taken from Neoclassic. In fact, it is implicitly assumed that the bags are stored in the warehouse not with natural ingredients, but money. On one bag is written: "Money for the purchase of raw materials." On the other - "Money on the purchase of labor", that is, really for payment of hours, minutes and seconds of working time. This money in some proportions are connected together, and the final product is obtained, which, again, is sold for money. The increase in money, if it succeeds in obtaining it, goes the owner of the company for the fact that it all stirred in the correct proportion, carefully and carefully.

Everything is clear and logical here, but only an attempt to transfer such a vision to the real production process, in which all factors participate in natural form, seems ridiculous. Money is absolutely liquid, and production factors - no, but because they are bought for money, then the property of liquidity on the assumption is transferred to them. And most importantly, money in this model, in theory, should not appear before, but after mixing factors of production. But neoclassics skillfully remove traces and misleading good citizens.

From the point of view of non-sympathy, such a description of the production process also suffers from the disadvantage, which is incomprehensible, as labor stored in bags, in the form of hours and minutes, in the form of money, it is not important, can be divided. On the one hand, it can be divided: We can have different bags that are stored different, divided by the profession of work, or rather, working hours and minutes of different labor in quality. Rather - money for the purchase different species Labor.

But it all makes sense when the work is already divided for some reason. But if we have a bag with unrequited labor in a warehouse, then the work is such and will remain.

It cannot be said that the presentation of production in the form of a production function does not at all reflect some real phenomena. Only occurs this in some very peculiar form.

Take such a phenomenon as replacement of resources. Actually, the main purpose of the production function in the overall structure of neoclassics is precisely to describe the prerequisite about the possibility of replacing resources, as a result of which alternative ways to use the same resources between which can be made "the best" choice.

But how to understand the replacement of resources? Can we assume that if a person with sharp vision is required for some kind of activity, it is quite possible to replace a dozen man with normal vision or hundreds of generally blind?

We will say: no need to understand everything literally. And how else to understand?

After all, you can actually replace. If we have a production process in which acute vision is required only for a short period of time, we can organize a division of labor in such a way that a person who has this quality constantly performed only the appropriate operation, and all other operations performed workers, such quality is not Possessing, at least blind.

If we calculate and compare, we will see the following. Before dividing the labor, the entire cost of a unit of manufactured products accounted for an employee with sharp vision. And in the conditions of separation of labor, its share accounts for only a minor part of the cost of a unit of finished products.

Formally, it turns out that there has been a rare resource for less rare resources. But in reality, we have an individual craftsman ousted by a firm that produces more products at times. And the larger the firm, the more it produces products per unit of time, the more rare resource can be replaced by less rare. That is, different points on the curve describing the production function belong to completely different situations in terms of labor separation.

Now we can give another definition for the technological separation of labor: with its help during the expansion of production, a rare resource is replaced by less rare.

The emergence of the Institute of Firm entails the most important social changes in the structure of society. We are talking about the formation of the labor market.

But before we consider this question, I would like to formulate the problem, as it traditionally exists in economic science.

The problem was created by Marx, so we start with it.

The Marxist concept is based on the concept of surplus value, which is formed as a result of the fact that the labor factor does not receive full remuneration for its contribution to the production of the value (value) of the final product. The payment of labor is carried out in accordance with the cost of labor, which is lower than the contribution of labor into produced products.

Why is labor forced to agree with the underestimation of his contribution? Marx answers this as follows: Because the employee is deprived of production. And he tells us numerous stories about how the individual manufacturers have lost their means of production, in particular, during the so-called covers. And then, when the labor market has developed, artisans began to lose their means of production depreciating as a result of competition with a large industry, having the opportunity to receive surplus value.

The weakest place of Marx Theory is uncertainty with a quantitative understanding of the cost of labor. What determines its value? On the one hand, everything seems to be clear. It is about the amount of vitality necessary for the physical survival of the employee. But this is not enough.

It is necessary that the workers obtained enough for the reproduction of workers as a class. Here Marx closely clings to Malthus, who did not complain much. The fact that Malthus has been given to the deposit of demographic processes and the law of supply and demand in the labor market, Marx is trying to accommodate the cost of labor. It turns out that capitalists seem to voluntarily have a tax, or collectively, or individually, to maintain the conditions of their existence.

But here there is already very strong uncertainty, since the mechanism of such self-defense and its magnitude is completely incomprehensible. The uncertainty is only increasing. It turns out that according to Marx, the labor force depends on historical and national characteristics. It is clear why it was necessary for him - to explain the fact that in England the level of income of hired workers was higher than in other countries. Here we have the wider space for a variety of interpretations. That is, any specific values \u200b\u200bof the cost of labor can be explained by the very vague categories. Approximately as an orthodox economic theory, when facing unexpected phenomena for her, resorts to historical and cultural explanations.

At the same time, Marx assumes that the real wages (the labor price) may vary under the influence of the conjuncture. The fact that she fluctuates exactly around the cost of labor is not justified, but simply postulated.

In the neoclassical theory, the problem of the valuation of labor is simply solved. Workforce - a limited resource, exactly the same as necessary for the production of natural resources and capital. As a result of solving the problem on the optimal use of limited resources in various ways to use them (I will remind you here, my comments about the production function) each of the factors mentioned receives its "fair" assessment. So no exploitation of labor does not exist and cannot exist.

However, opponents of an orthodox theory have their own objections about this scheme. We are talking about unemployment. That is, they say, labor is not a limited factor of production, it is always an excess. Marx on this occasion introduced the category of "industrial reserve labor army", the existence of which he justifies in its accumulation theory.

And if excess workforce exists - and it really exists, the formation of the workforce evaluation occurs according to other rules.

However, the orthodox theory developed an echelonized line of protection against this objection. It is assumed that there is voluntary unemployment. The natural unemployment rate is distinguished, the possibility of the existence of structural unemployment is recognized. It is indicated on distortion, which bring the social policy of the state and the activities of trade unions to the labor market.

In general, if we are unbiased, we will see a kind of symmetry. In Marxism, the weak link is the cost of the workforce, and many reasoning are tried around this concept. In Neoclassic, the same picture with limited delivery offers. And all because structurally both theories are similar, distinguishing only in detail, although essential.

The division of labor in the firm devalues \u200b\u200bthe knowledge of workers, which creates the possibility of their operation.

Still, there is exploitation in the capitalist economy or not? Who is more rights: Marx or Neoclassics?

What is the main means of making an artisan? If we remember that I talked above about the production process, it is knowledge of the correct sequence of movements, as a result of which the raw material turns into a product that can be implemented on the market. Well, or human capital, that is, those costs of time, and possibly, and other resources that you need to get this knowledge.

Here we are faced with the fact that Marx called the dual character of labor and that he considered the main discovery in political economy. In my opinion, this self-assessment is largely valid, although he himself did not make this concept.

On the one hand, the artisan performs simple operations, simple movements, for any complex movement can be represented as a sequence of simple, and in this capacity does not differ from representatives of all other professions and industries (this is what Marx expressed the "abstract work" category).

On the other hand, it controls the sequence of operations performed using the acquired knowledge, which allows it to produce a specific useful product, the consumer value ("specific work" in Marx terminology).

For the individual manufacturer, as part of its daily activities, the leading role is played, undoubtedly abstract work. He gets tired because driving movement during the day, and not because he knows their correct sequence. And the income received by him, from his point of view, compensates for this fatigue, the cost of physical energy. Again, if he wants to increase his income, he must make more movements. But it is not necessary to "increase the number of knowledge" to him at all.

Now let's remember how the division of labor in the firm is arranged. The production process is divided into separate operations. Some of these operations are complex and require that the person performing them possessed knowledge. Other operations are simple: they do not require any special knowledge. It is enough to show a person once, from where, where and what he should carry, - and he will do it constantly.

When I described the case of creating a company, I did not specifically stay on the issue of wages of workers. It just suggested that those who wish to work in this industry are coming to the hired employees, but cannot claim income income related to the market.

In fact, the situation is more difficult. Imagine that we have production processes, professions or types of products are ranked on yields for an hour of working time from top to bottom. That is, at the top there are professions requiring the greatest human capital. Below are professions that produce special knowledge products that do not require.

Suppose that the formation of the company occurred in the industry located somewhere in the middle of our list. Then the owner of such a company can make a profitable offer to artisans located at the bottom of the list. Rather, even, not to those who have already mastered the profession, but the "young men, thinking about living" and want to start earning as soon as possible. Do not waste time study, he will say to them. Go to me at the factory, I will quickly show you what to do, - and work, and you will get as much. Well, or a little less, but then immediately.

See - the deal on both sides is honest and mutually beneficial. The worker gets the opportunity to immediately start earning and not spend time on the acquisition of human capital. Income, he gets for the fact that "tired", but he also believed that his income was due to the number of physical work performed.

And the owner of the firm gets the opportunity to hire workers about the cheap. "The cheap" means the following. In the industry in which the company operates, there is a certain level of income of individual manufacturers, due to the magnitude of their human capital. If you hire them, they will have to ensure earnings, not less than the average industry, even if they perform a simple work (otherwise no one will go). The benefit in this case will only be that the employees will not need to share the super democrats formed in the conditions of imbalance in the market.

Immediately we assume that the owner of the company appears an additional opportunity to hire workers from other industries, where the sectoral level of income is lower.

Generally speaking, this reasoning leads us to the conclusion that companies can form and bring their profits to their owners and without my assumptions about the presence of an imbalance in the market. But I, in contrast to neoclassics, I always try to argue in those tight frames that neoclassics themselves have established. F. Knight said that there should be no secret collusion, that is, no one can use any for more informationexcept the one that is contained in prices - well, here I am trying to honestly fulfill this requirement. Although, of course, I understand that in reality, this rigid restriction may not be performed and is not even accurate.

But I distracted. See what happens to us. Previously, according to the assumptions made, the condition for obtaining the income of any participant in the economic system was preliminary mastering by some knowledge. With the emergence of the company, there is an opportunity to receive income without taking advantage of the knowledge, but simply performing the instructions of the owner of the company.

So, in the company the duality of the labor process, open by Marx, is realized in its pure form. Knowledge (concrete labor) becomes the property of the owner of the company, entrepreneur, and then the company itself. Employees are focused on performing simple operations, the meaning of which is the unknown to them, and not very interested. Their work is abstract. And this is the splitting of labor and is a prerequisite that Marx called operation.

The income of the entrepreneur is determined by concrete labor - it does not change here, the income of the individual manufacturer, as we suggested, is also determined by concrete labor. The income of the workers is determined by the situation in the abstract labor market. How it happens, we will see below.

So Marx was right! Operation in capitalist society, if we understand the society under this expression, in which the leading role is played by the firms. And the basis of this operation is indeed lies deprivation of work means of production, if we understand knowledge under the means of production.

The creation of firms destroys the system of motivation to acquire knowledge, leaving for the share of employees fulfillment of only simple operations.

Once again I remind the prerequisites of our analysis. We have an income rank per unit of working time list of professions. The company is created in the industry in which artisans are busy from the middle of this list, and the workers are hired from among the representatives of the least profitable professions.

I may argue: the transition of artisans from one industry to another will lead to a fall of the proposal in the first of these industries, the prices for appropriate products will grow, and the workers will quickly return to their former profession.

I will answer this as the following. First of all, youth will work on hiring, those who are just going to learn the craft.

And only if the demand for labor will be high, acting artisans can join them.

Yes, the reduction in the number of people who want to learn to the low-speed craft will lead to a decrease in supply. But not immediately, and after a while. Yes, people who own profession will begin to leave the factory. But those who do not own the profession, it is unlikely that they will do it. For them, this will mean during the refusal of the right earnings already received.

Again, the owner of the company in the event of a threat to the outflow of workers can increase the level of wages. For him, this will mean a decline in profits, but not complete its disappearance. At the same time, if the wage increases so much that it becomes attractive for representatives of the profession, standing in the second from the bottom in our list, then those who were going to master this profession will be going to the factory, and then those who were already engaged in the industry.

Motivation to gain knowledge in this industry will now be violated. If we continue our reasoning on, we will see that the motivation to gain knowledge will be destroyed in all industries in our ranking below the one in which the education of firms.

Again, let's look at the industry at the bottom of the list. The outflow of workers, as we have already seen, after some time will lead to a violation of the balance between supply and demand and price increases. That is, a powerful demand wave will arise, to quickly satisfy which it will be impossible.

Thus, the conditions for the creation of firms will appear in these industries. If firms are created in them, then in these industries, the motivation to gain knowledge will be finally destroyed: the individual manufacturer will be uncompetitive with the firm. Let's not forget about the natural division of labor, about what A. Smith told us about the growth of productivity. A little later we will return to this issue.

So, we saw that the emergence of firms launches the process during which the set of individual manufacturers turns into labor. At first, this process affects young, those who else only plans to master what profession. They find out suddenly that to make life, it is not at all necessary to spend time on the acquisition of the profession.

This process also affects workers already having a profession. In the industry in which firms are created almost immediately. Individual manufacturers are not able to compete on equal footing with the capitalist enterprise. While the industry is under the influence of the demand wave, they can somehow survive. When the wave of demand goes to a decline, they are forced to leave their profession and either develop a new one, or go to work at the factory, having resigned with a decrease in income.

At the first stage of the transition to factory production, when the changes covers only a small part of the production system, and the individual manufacturers dominate, whose income is determined by their knowledge and skills, wages of employees may increase in certain periods.

However, this wage growth is "poisoned". Its consequence is an increase in the number of participants in the economic system, refused to master the knowledge and skills necessary for handicraft production, and increased competition between labor carriers.

In addition, we will not forget that this wage growth is caused by the growth of income in the industries who did not make the transition to the factory system. This means that conditions (in the sense of incentives) appear in such industries (in the sense of incentives) to transition to such a system where knowledge is focused in firms, and employees begin to perform simple operations.

When the number of employees who do not own any profession, or those whose professional knowledge became unnecessary, reaches a critical level, wages begins to decline. I will not talk here about the transition to the widespread use of female and child labor. There is no one in my model, but in reality, as we all know well, it was.

So, initially the value of the workforce (we will use this term, although, as we see, we are not talking about something uniquely specific) is indeed determined by the historically established level of craftsmen in this area. And probably, this level of income was quite sufficient to provide crafts for survival and demographic reproduction. However, the further dynamics of wages is determined by the specific parameters of the process of forming firms in the economy, that is, more and more determined by the market situation.

Let's not forget that we, when we describe economic processes, I never bring them to any "closed" economy, so we must take into account a significant number of factors. I don't want to say at all that it is impossible to consider them all - just for this too much time will need. So still limit everything only.

So, I hope, we understood how and why the technological separation of labor can occur. Now it's time to return to the natural division of labor.

Does the artisan perform all the operations that make up the production process in the best possible way? Most probably not. Some operations, namely those that mostly determine the result of the production process, it probably tries to perform as much as possible. He relates to them with maximum attention, carefully, trying to invent new ways of action, accelerating work and ensuring improvement of the quality of the product obtained.

For the remaining operations of its resources of attention and thoroughness simply not enough. He performs them automatically, not really thinking.

A worker who is busy only by performing a separate operation is focused on making it at least the cost of effort and faster. In this case, he receives extra time for recreation, and if at the firm for this operation, some kind of piece of target wage was installed, then the ability to additionally earn.

The execution of various operations may require the performer of various manifestations of "dexterity", as A. Smith calls. The artisan can, of course, train these different types of dexterity, but again, most likely he prefers to focus on the key, from its point of view, operations. A partial worker is the fact that he is constantly busy with one operation, will train the dexterity necessary for this type of operation.

In addition, the owner of the company will instruct the fulfillment of certain individual operations to those employees who have suitable physical data and initially have the necessary deposit.

For employees employed by one operation, new knowledge is also formed. What is it about?

The production process is always associated with uncertainty. The quality of the raw material may be different, the state of the instrument, equipment and other production conditions may also differ depending on the set of concomitant circumstances. Very rare the course of the production process is uniquely defined in all its details. It should be considered as probabilistic. The artisan must constantly evaluate the entire set of random circumstances and adjust its actions in accordance with them. The situations that the employee faces both during the production process itself and during the implementation of individual operations may be infinitely diverse.

Therefore, knowledge can never be absolute. It is always not enough. There can always be situations to which no one has not taught in advance, and the artisan has to invent himself, how to adjust its actions. If some situations are often found quite often, then the best way of action is developed by trial and errors, which is remembered and is part of the knowledge of the artisan.

An employee who constantly performs the same operation, for the same time faces various situations several times more often than the artisan performing the entire production cycle. Accordingly, it produces new knowledge faster, and it is wider than the artisan, as it belongs to a wider range of possible situations.

All this is an increase in the level of attentiveness and care, the development of agility and the use of workers who have the necessary initial physical data to perform certain operations, the formation of a new knowledge (in a narrower sphere, but also deeper) - leads to the implementation of a separate operation in many Cases turns into an independent profession, requiring an employee of possessing certain natural, natural qualities and / or preliminary learning.

So what do we see? Take the initial point of our reasoning. The worker (artisan) can participate in the production process only if it has a certain profession. Thus, we are dealing with some structure of potentially rare resources.

Why potentially? In equilibrium conditions, this "rarity" does not exhibit itself. It becomes relevant only if we are faced with the situation of a sharp increase in demand for some product. Then firms appear in the relevant industry, within the framework of which, due to the technological division of labor, the "substitution" of rare resources are less rare (or rather, not at all).

However, in the future, on the basis of operations to which the production process is divided, a new structure of professions is formed. That is, we again arise a problem of potentially rare resources. If this rare resource becomes relevant, the new act of technological separation of labor becomes relevant - and the cycle is repeated again.

From our point of view, the constant repetition of such cycles of the transition from the technological separation of labor to natural and again to the technological and constitutes the rod of economic development over the past 250 years.

On the division of labor, its conditions and consequences can be spent very long. We will still talk about some aspects when we consider issues of scientific and technological progress.

In conclusion, I would like to stay on the main premise of my working model. We are talking about a stable imbalance in the market, which initiates the restructuring of the economic structure.

Where does he come from? In the first approach, the answer to it we already have. It appears as a result of interaction between different reproductive contours or markets. That is, it creates the activities of the financial sector.

Actually, that's all that we can say about this. A more detailed answer will require consideration by many additional aspects of economic development, both theoretical and actual, which would increase the volume of the presentation several times. Therefore, we will stop while on this.

63. Actually, we have already done these arguments in the fourth lecture. In it, the tribe appeared as an example of a reproduction circuit - I meant exactly the description we are currently discussing.

64. Do not forget that we are dealing with asymmetry of information. We know the history of good luck, the products that found their consumers and brought success to their creators. And practically do not know anything about losers. And they themselves rarely try to remind themselves.

65. Of course, the loss of the level of labor separation was also due to other, more fundamental reasons. But the flow rate of the process was due precisely the disappearance of the "leader".

66. It is necessary to make a reservation - the division of labor that is not related to the different quality of natural resources used (see the sixth lecture), although additional conditions are required there.

67. What could the artisan be guided before the release of the book by A. Smith? True, Marx argued that the role of division of labor was also known to Smith. But it does not change anything. All the same, the role was open to POST FACTUM when the division of labor has already reached a certain level.

68. I mean individuals, and not a firm. Firms are quite another thing, we will talk about them later.

69. R. Coase leads the following reasoning: "The economic theory argues that the placement of production factors between different methods of use is determined by the price mechanism. The price of factor A becomes higher in x than in y. As a result, it moves from Y to x until the difference in prices in x and y (since it does not reimburse other comparative advantages). BUT B. real world We discover that in many areas all this is not apparent. When the worker passes from the Y department to the X department, he does it not because of the change in relative prices, but because he ordered so much. "

70. "It is necessary to look at the market not as a sales market for individual products of a certain industry, and, therefore, as an external in relation to this industry, but as a total market for all goods as a whole, therefore the volume of the market is limited and determined by the volume production. If this conclusion requires clarification, the market concept in this sense is a combination of production activities related to the existence of some balance, in the sense that various types of production activities should have certain proportions to each other "(Young . E. Increasing returns and economic progress. 1928).

71. Generally speaking, here I am experiencing dual feelings. On the one hand, it is clear that Young independently came to his conclusions, using only Smith's idea. On the other hand, if he knew well the history of economic knowledge, he would understand that he was converted to the fact that for classic political economy was quite trivial thought. "The larger the scale of the enterprise, the more deep division of labor is possible to implement. In this lies main reason The emergence of large factories, "J. Stewart Mill, wrote 80 years before him.

72. The wording belongs to N. Vyacheslavova.

73. If someone thinks that this is a caricature, he is deeply mistaken. They are just so-so imagine.

74. Babbage C. Economy of Manufactures and Machinery. 1832.

75. The terminology itself does not like it in this case, because it implicitly, at least in Russian, introduces a hierarchy of different types of costs, making them on important and not very important.

76. Although in Western literature there are bright examples when the term "knowledge" is issued. As many people remember, Sherlock Holmes did not consider knowledge of the statement that the earth rotates around the Sun, because it does not help him catch criminals.

77. Yes, and that is not always. Training takes time, it means that all reactions occur with delay. It is known that if you enter a delay in the system with negative feedback, it can turn into a system with positive feedback. It all depends on the initial parameters.

78. This assumption is not mandatory. It is made for visibility of the model, otherwise the presentation would be too complicated.

79. We will not forget that the firm compared to the individual manufacturer will be easier to withstand the rise in prices not only on equipment, but also on raw materials. And the raw materials under the influence of the demand wave will also be expensive.

80. The orthodox theory in such a situation offers us only one way to make money - to open courses for learning those who want a new profession. Neonicomics, without excluding this method, offers both the second - to organize the division of labor.

81. If we talk about the contradictions between the volumes of "Capital", I would just pay attention to the contradiction between the first and second volumes: between the Marx theory of the accumulation and its same extended reproduction theory. However, there was a lot of R. Luxembourg.

82. As S. Winter who has already quoted by me rightly, with his co-author R. Nelson, ". I myself, and not people working on firms know how to make gasoline, cars and computers."

83. There is also the basic difficulty in analyzing the phenomenon of the division of labor. At every moment of time, we are only observing the natural division of labor. The acts of technological separation of labor are in common and within the framework of local units - firms.

Strictly speaking, the division of labor in human societies could always be discovered. After all, people never existed alone, and cases of the emergence of society and the farm, consisting of one person (type of Robinson's farm Cruzo), were rather rare exception. People always lived at least family or tribe.

But the development of division of labor in the farm of any society passes several consecutive stages from the primitive state to an extremely difficult distribution scheme. Schematically, you can present this evolution as follows.

The first stage. This is a natural division of labor inside primitive society. In such a society, there was always some distribution of duties that determined partly by the nature of each person, partly by the customs, and partly known to you savings from scale. As a rule, men engaged in hunting and war, and women watched the hearth and nursing children. In addition, in almost any tribe, it was possible to discover such "professions" as the leader and priest (shaman, sorcerer, etc.).

Second stage. As the number of members of society increases, the need for each good increases and the possibility of concentrating individuals at the production of individual benefits. Therefore, in societies different appear professions (artisans, farmers, cattle products, etc.).

The process of allocating professions begins, of course, with the production of workers of labor. Even in the Stone Age (!) There were masters engaged in squeezing and grinding stone guns. With the opening of iron, one of the most common in the past professions appears blacksmith.

A characteristic feature of this stage is that the manufacturer makes everything (or almost all) possible products associated with its profession (as a rule, it is a processing of some kind of raw material). For example, a blacksmith does everything from nails and horseshoes to plows and swords, the joiner does everything from stools to cabinets, etc.

At this stage of the division of labor, part of the family members of the artisan family or even the whole family helps him in production, performing certain operations. For example, a blacksmith or joiner can help sons and brothers, and tissue or a bull \u003d wife and daughter.

Third stage. With increasing population and, accordingly, the size of the demand for individual products, artisans begin to concentrate on the production of any one good Some blacksmiths make horseshoes, others only knives and scissors, third only nails different sizes, fourth only weapons, etc.

In ancient Russia, for example, the following names of wood masters were existed: stands, Ship, Matchniks, Trees, Builders, Gains (strengthening cities), vicious (production of trumpent guns), linens, Cressing, Bochkari, Sanniki, Kolesnikov etc.

An important factor affecting labor productivity is labor cooperation. The more deeply the division of labor and the specialization of production becomes more narrow, the more the manufacturers become interdependent, the greater the consistency and coordination between different production. To act in conditions of interdependence, labor cooperation is necessary, both in the conditions of the enterprise and in the conditions of the whole society.

Labor cooperation - Form of labor organization, work, based on joint participation in a single workforce of a significant number of employees who perform different operations of this process.

Form of organization public laborIn which a large number of people together participate in the same labor process or in different, but related labor processes. Along with the division of labor, labor cooperation is a fundamental factor in productivity and efficiency growth in all spheres professional activity.

Labor cooperation is the unity, coherence of joint actions of manufacturers, various industries and sectors of the economy.

Labor cooperation allows you to avoid multiple errors, such as duplication of production, overproduction. On the other hand, the consistency and coordination of actions, the union of a plurality of effort makes it possible to do something that is not unable to one manufacturer or one enterprise. In case of simple work cooperation, which takes place, for example, in the construction of houses, hydrostations, the useful effect of cooperation is obvious. Labor cooperation takes place in all spheres economic activity, it takes a variety of forms .

World experience shows that labor and production cooperation is an objective historical process that is inherent in all methods of production, countries with any socio-economic system. In cooperation of production, advanced ideas are united and materialized, achievements in the branches of fundamental science, research and development and development works (R & D), industrial, design, managerial and information technologies.

Cooperation B. modern world It becomes the reproductive basis for the socio-economic and scientific and technical progress of the countries of the world, the core of world economic processes, regional economic integration, transnationalization (production, R & D, information and financial sector, etc.), international industrial cooperation, globalization of the global economy. This form of interaction has become an accelerator of the structural restructuring of the industry, its sectoral and interdepartmental complexes on a new technological basis, including on the basis of the widespread use of electronic and information technologies.

International specialization and production cooperation corresponds to a high level of productive forces and acts as one of the objective of the most important prerequisites for the further development of the internationalization of economic life, strengthening the relationship of national farms. Now in the foreign market, hundreds of thousands of semi-finished products are circulated, the analogues of which one hundred and a half or two decades ago were also applied on the intra-revocative level.

It was the division of labor that caused a separation from each other in various professions and classes, which contributed primarily an increase in productivity and the higher the stage of the country's industrial development, the farther there is such a division. The fact that in the wild state of the Company is the work of one person, then in more developed - is performed by several. The work required for the production of some complete item is always distributed between a large number of people.

The division of labor, speaking in various types and forms of its manifestation, is the determining prerequisite for the development of commodity production and market relations, since the concentration of labor efforts at the production of a narrow circle of products or on its individual species force producers to enter into relations with the purpose of obtaining Good. -

Labor separation: concept and general characteristics. one

Degree of division of labor- 2

Types of division of labor. 3.

Forms of manifestation of the division of labor. four

A. Smith on the division of labor. four

From the history of labor division- 5

Labor cooperation. 6.

The primitive-free model of economic development: the main stages of formation and features.

Signs:

Low level of development of productive forces and slow improvement

Collective assignment of natural resources and production results

Equalization distribution, social equality

Lack of private property, exploitation, classes and states

Low pace of development of society.

Stages:

Paleolithic (ancient stone age) - 3 million - 12 thousand years BC

Mesolithic (middle stone) - 12 - 8 thousand years BC

Neolithic (new stone age) - 8 - 3 thousand years BC

1 early Paleolithic (up to 100 thousand years BC). Petecantrop, Sinantrophop, Neanderthals - gathering, fishing and picked hunting.

2-medium Paleolithic (40 thousand years ago ended). Cryanonian man along with Neanderthals. Directoral speech. Extraction of fire. Stone technique.

3-late Paleolithic (ended in XII thousand BC). Matriarchy. Public bans. Simple assigning farm - Hunting, fishing and gathering. Stone equipment level increased. Work as simple cooperation without separation. All in collective property. Labor distribution of production. Exchange between communities.

4-mesolithic (XII-VIII thousand BC). Individual hunting. Improving weapons, the appearance of Luke. New techniques in fisheries. Lightweight and reduce the volume of stone guns. Assigning the economy of lower hunters, collectors and fishermen. Principle of collectivization. Use of boats. Molding new lands. Several days of childbirth began to unite into the tribe. Patriarchate.

5-neolithic (VIII-IV thousand BC). The first public division of labor on agricultural and cattle breeding. The second public division of labor is then the selection of crafts from agriculture - the individualization of labor, the emergence and development of private property. The first craft is pottery. "Neolithic revolution" - the emergence of new techniques, forms of production and lifestyle, the development of new territories and their effective use. The generation of exchange is because There were surplus of agricultural and craft production. Transition to a settled lifestyle.

6-Eneithic (4-3 thousand BC). The appearance of metal - copper, gold, bronze. The system of irrigated and plow agriculture, strengthening property inequality.

The first and second public division of labor: causes, essence and consequences.

The first division of labor:

Backgrounds:

The emergence and distribution of agriculture in fertile districts, then domestication of animals, which often gave greater income than agriculture. Some tribes even turned to livestock.

Essence:

In the total mass of primitive tribes, 2 groups were distinguished: cattle and agricultural.

Effects:

1. Transition to a settled lifestyle

2. Rising labor productivity

3. Ability to accumulate stocks (wealth)

4. Narquate Trade (Natural Exchange)

5. Development of religion, art.

Second division of labor:

The reasons:

The appearance of free time due to the growth of labor productivity (less time and energy costs was required to produce food), the emergence and development of crafts.

Essence:

Selection of crafts from agriculture.

Effects:

1. Individualization of labor

2. Private property development

RESULT:

Transition to a manufacturing farm:

Variety of products intended for exchange

Deployed Exchange System

The need to enter the universal equivalent.

⚡ The division of labor ⚡ is the separation of various types of work. The beginning of this process laid a natural division of labor on the floor and age, which was developed in the household. Outside this economy, the public division of labor began to grow. The modern system includes the following types of such a division of labor:

1. Individual specialization is the concentration of human activity at a special occupation, mastering a certain profession, specialty.
2. Labor separation at the enterprise (allocation in the labor team of various types of work, operations).
3. Separation of creative activities across the industries, type of production (for example, electric power industry, oil production, automotive industry, etc.).
4. Separation of national production on large childbirth (industry, agriculture and etc.).
5. Territorial division of labor within the country (with the specialization of the production of some products in different economic areas).
6. International division of labor (specialization of the production of individual countries in certain types of products with which these countries exchange).

The continuous development of the division of labor is objectively due to the progress of technology and the human production factor, as well as the conditions for the improvement of complex work cooperation. These conditions appeared already in the transition from simple labor cooperation of artisans in the capitalist enterprise to manufactory - the union of workers who perform separately many small operations.

Naturally, the subsequent transition from a manual-based manufactory, which has repeatedly increased the efficiency of division of labor to the industrial production.

So, the specialization of creative activities is the most important means of increasing labor productivity (increase in the production of people). This is the consequence of what:

• first, the specialization of workers multiplies the clearer, involves the acquisition of more advanced knowledge and skills
• secondly, it is ensured by working time saving, because, focusing efforts, a person stops moving from one lesson to another
• thirdly, specialization gives an impetus to the invention and the use of machinery, making production mass and highly efficient

Of great importance is the training in secondary professional and higher educational institutions of specialists in various sectors of scientific, technical and economic activities.

Modern state educational standards of higher vocational education adopted in our country in 2000, provide student research:

1. common humanitarian and socio-economic disciplines (domestic history, cultural studies, political science, philosophy, economics, etc.)
2. common mathematical and natural science disciplines
3. common-Professional Disciplines
4. disciplines specialization

Thus, all students receive wide vocational training in conjunction with a narrow specialization, which improves the quality of professional training and their in demand for practical activities.

2. The most beginning of the division of labor

"With the advent finished person There was a new element in addition - a society, "said K. Marx.

Since it is found that the exchange facilities were present in public life to state entities, including the great empires of antiquity, the study is forced to deepen in the economy of the primitive-free building in order to detect the origins of money not in the environment of the inhabitants of castles and temples, but in primitive shepherd communities, Hunters and farmers.

Commodities, like other ways of social regulation of economic life within a primitive society, contributed to the interconnection of individual, group and local needs, the formation of a single social interest. When we define a person as a public animal, there is a complex of completely specific properties of a person expressed in behavior behind this general statement.

The ethnographer Pierre cluster brings a fact that demonstrating one of the options for the reproducible social relationship. South American Indians - Guayakov exists a taboo on the reached game or the beast: the hunter can not have something that he shot or caught. He must exchange his prey on another food from someone from the members of the tribe.

Famous English sociologist and ethnographer B. Malinovsky mentions the custom of the inhabitants of the island of the Tornogan to give part of the harvest and hunting production of "husband of the sister", even when the sisters are in fact not.

Of course, when it says about product exchange in conditions of primitive society, it should not be assumed that it was separate in some independent activity. Here you need to avoid transferring antiquity modern ideas. The exchange of activities and products of labor at the local level, within the community and the genus served as a model of interdic and cross-interchange. Only if you adhere to the incorrect initial hypothesis about individual hunting and collecting, you can develop thoughts on hostile attitude to strangers as the main psychological background of external contacts.

But separate primitive communities - either fiction, or the result of a coating of unique circumstances. Human society could not form a single hunters and collectors, nor from those who are warring with each other.

In the history of the division of labor for a long time, the "theory of three steps" was dominated by the final execution in the French archaeologist Gabriel de Mortil, called "the origin of hunting, cattle breeding and agriculture" and published in 1890. He summed up the views, which were still in ancient Greece, according to which three forms of management were consistent in the history of mankind: a hunting-collecting, cattle and agricultural. The latter was relying by the ancient Greeks of the highest, because they themselves were mainly agriculture.

The criticism of the theory of three steps began already in 1892 in the work of the German geographer Edward Khana "Form of Earth farm", which, however, did not offer another, more faithful theory. Since the theories of three steps: Such authorities were adhered to as A. Smith and J. Zh. Rousseau, the faithful remarks of E. Khan to this theory just coexist with her, without undermining it and without refuting.

What are these comments?

Agriculture is much ancient cattle breeding, and it developed in many places on its own from gathering. Academician N. I. Vavilov allocated seven centers of agriculture, believing that some of them should be considered primary. V. S. Titov proposes to consider the primary three: anterior compartment, including Egypt and Mesopotamia, Indochaysky and Central American.

The domestication of animals happened rather from the farmers than the hunters, since the hunters did not have the reserves of feed. Agriculture, which developed from gathering, gave an impetus to the transition from the assigning economy to producing, from the economy of immediate consumption to the economy, in which there are reserves and the distribution of consumption in time.

Interpretation of the statements of the classics of Marxism-Leninism PA This account requires that the researcher define its position in advance: convince him or not in the fact that the theory of three steps is incorrect, new data from history, ethnography and archeology.

F. Engels wrote: "The shepherd tribes stood out from the rest of the mass of the barbarians - it was the first major public division of labor" (Marx K., Engels F. Ot., Vol. 21, p. 160). The importance of this thought emphasized V. I. Lenin (Poly. Coll. Op., Vol. 39, p. 67-68). But the high level of research culture did not allow NE F. Engels, nor V. I. Lenin write that the shepherd tribes were mediated from the tribes of hunters, thereby taking their own conclusions by attachment to one, from potentially correct theories.

In another place, F. Engels speaks about the "division of labor between the shepherd nations and the remaining tribes that have no stadium." He never calls these tribes by hunting, despite the fact that Adam Smith himself argued it directly and unequivocally.

Currently, according to the archeology, the history of the division of labor can be schematically described so. 10 thousand years ago from the hunters and collectors environments, the tribes suffered from the cultivation of cereals. This contributed to the essential growth of food production and created conditions for population growth. The growing population stimulated the processes of settling new, less adapted territories. In parallel, the redistribution of power, speaking in modern language - delegation of powers from the level of the tribe down, at the level of the genus and patriarchal family.

The production farm appeared for the first time, presumably, in front and Central Asia, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Iranian Horace. The outflow of excess population passed through Kurdistan and Turkmenistan, as well as through the Balkans.

During the time of the middle bronze, the immunerals and Syrdarya intercourse were mastered from the central agricultural zone and settled to the east until the Minusinsky brand and west to the top of the Dnieper. During the settlement and there was a gradual separation of the shepherd tribes from "tribes that do not have stadium."

Thus, "the first major division of labor is the allocation of generic teams with economies producing economies from the medium of assigning farms (VIII-VI thousand years BC). The second large division of labor should be considered the allocation of the tribes with the producing economy of cattle breeding - the latter A third of the III millennium BC. "

In time, when the book "The origin of the family, private property and the state" was written, nothing knew about the Neolithic revolution. Especially surprising the flexibility of Engels formulation that allowed its possibility.

"The first public division of labor made it possible regular exchange. Firstly, agricultural cattle breeding tribes made money to life qualitatively different than the tribes of collectors, and, secondly, they could produce these funds more than they needed to maintain life. This surplus was still small, but its existence was of great importance, "writes the Soviet historian I. N. Krestman and adds:" Complete insulation has never been real. The exchange was carried out between neighboring tribes, and the staged. "

Therefore, it is impossible to join this opinion: "We have occurred with the advent of crafts as industries. Effective commodity production occurred. Craftsmen cease to be watched and settled in certain places."

Modern historical science is generally recognized that the division of labor is somehow connected with the Neolithic Revolution, which gave acceleration to the development of productive forces. But the origins of labor separation go to very deep antiquity and concern how to expect in accordance with the Marxist ideas, the specialization of labor instruments.

In England, in the county of Norfolk, in the era of early Neolith, there were mines where flint was mined. It is precisely established that the mass production of stone axes was carried out there until the middle of the 3th millennium BC. The start of work in mines is less than a thousand thousand years before our era.

The production of ax was clearly specialized, although researchers are still not clear in the then division of labor. In particular, the primary processing of a flint ax was carried out right in the mine. This is evidenced by the accumulation of chipping (waste). On the surface, thus, no raw material was carried out, but a semi-finished product.

Finished products from these mines were found for hundreds of kilometers from them. "It is possible that in the early period they have become overwhelmed by neighboring villages and fell a few times a few kilometers further," writes John Wood in the book "Sun, Moon and ancient stones." Such an assumption is refuted by significant volumes of production: "However, the mines in Gramas-graves produced a significant amount of ax, and the manufacture of them would quickly cease, if there were no permanent distribution paths. Or traders left the traders with ready-made axes, or the communities that needed axes were purchased. The need for their number is right around the mines. "

So specialization in the production of labor tools with inevitability makes it conclude about the development of trade, trade and trade routes.

There is no doubt that whatever this exchange means is unlikely to resemble modern money. Above is shown, what an abundance of variations - in part of the material, the scope of action, forms, the rules of application - can be allowed to preserve the functions of money. The widespread opinion reads: "In antiquity, only the embryo of the cost signs could be." From the content of previous chapters it follows that in these "embryos" contained the possibilities of carrying out at least two functions of money: cost measures and means of circulation. The fulfillment of these functions by any product of labor does not leave the place of the presentation that the early stages of the development of the economy were based on wise (or stupid) solutions for tribal leaders. Together with a person, a society arose, together with the society - the economy. Further development went under objective economic laws, which all members of society are equally subordinated, regardless of the functions performed.

It would seem what our business is now to the role of tribal leaders or elders in distant antiquity, is it really important? It turns out yes. Modern monetarists believe that ancient times, economic life is obliged to send its development to solutions of "strong" people. Because it is so, why not determine the direction of development modern economy The president who is guided by private logical conclusions, and not the knowledge of objective laws of social development. Irony of the development of bourgeois economic theory It is here that the monetarism roar - the Chicago "Journal of Political Economy" regularly publishes work on the economy of primitive society. Often, interesting thoughts are expressed in these articles, directed against the original concept of monetarists 0 exposure to any economy solutions separately taken.

Here is the article by Richard Posner, which discusses the book F. Pryora "origins of the economy". A variety of topics for the primitive economy researchers are offered: an econometric analysis of the wedding redemption in Eskimos, the definition of the price of information in the absence of a bazaar in primitive tribes, the number of products, inquiries for the winter or rainy season, and much more. But not the list of works offered. Pozner literally shouts: applying econometric methods to primitive economy, do not consider the main model of the redistribution of products by leaders, it is anti-economic. I can not even believe that it is in this magazine that the main anti-economic ideas are promoted - inhumanism, involving arbitrary interference in the sphere cash circulation. R. Pozner allocates two anti-economic approaches to primitive economy: substantivism and formalism. The first he calls shapeless (what happens from statistics, then well). The second approach - when the researcher trusts the adopted rules of economic behavior, studies them, and not a valid economic life. And in order, and for another approach, the absence of "preliminary wording of the economic theory of primitive society is characterized. Both are checked to check whether the hypothesis is confirmed by the available data."

Well, what is not the lunge towards non-opetarists? Made in the journal constantly publishing new and new works of non-monetaryists, theorists of the "Proposal Economics" and "Rational Expectations", it indicates a serious separation of bourgeois economic thoughts from research in the field of cultural history.

"We can not assume," says Pozner, referring to the book of Pryora, - that in primitive society all products were distributed by persons held by the high position. " Economy, dependent on psychology individualscan not exist. In opposite ideas, there is something from the children's opinion about the device of public life: no matter how they quarrel from the toys, the teacher will come and everything will be wondering. But in the real economic life of "educators" no, and the Company is managed by the objective laws of development, no less strict than the laws of physics and chemistry. And always a significant element of social relations was the exchange of labor products using a wide variety of means of such an exchange.